|
On August 17 2012 19:47 revy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 09:02 Forikorder wrote:On August 16 2012 09:01 0neder wrote:On August 15 2012 00:25 [F_]aths wrote:On August 05 2012 15:30 Flexis wrote:On August 05 2012 12:03 Aetherial wrote:
After watching the OSL finals where Jangbi used carriers I'm convinced they need to keep and 'fix' the carrier in HotS... I hope they do. I say thesame. I want carriers more than the tempest. That cannot be the most important argument for a decision. If Blizzard would have asked the fans how they want SC2, we would now have Broodwar with widescreen graphics. Even though if you don't like this particular change for HotS, you should be able to see the greater good of developing a franchise forward instead of using the same old content over and over. In this case, a 'fixed' carrier would make the unit very unlikely like a carrier, so it is good that the unit gets replaced entirely instead of keeping the name for an effectively new unit. I call BS my friend. Changing stats/range of the Carrier and giving it back moving shot do not make it a 'new unit.' Scrap the carrier for all I care, but don't give me a shallow unit with no depth. The carrier has 3-4 layers of depth that make it cool. The tempest, a single layer. the carrier has no depth its the msot Amove unit in existance its exactly like a broodlords only worse since the intercepters can be shot down Perhaps the SC2 carrier, but the BW carrier, that was a wonderful unit. Required micro to use properly and was sufficiently powerful (against terran at least).
I know I'm constantly asking you guys for videos but if anyone remembers great examples of goliath/carrier micro from BW I can put it in an upcoming segment on why the Carrier was so good for gameplay in BW.
En Taro Carrier!
|
Hoppfully blizzard keeps The carrier, and if they dont i think thw tempest Will be cool.
|
|
|
1)Watch tvp battle report
2)Replace all tempests with carriers
3) How different would that game have been?
That reason alone makes me want the carrier to be kept and buffed to be made viable, not this crappy tempest.
|
On August 18 2012 01:32 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 19:47 revy wrote:On August 16 2012 09:02 Forikorder wrote:On August 16 2012 09:01 0neder wrote:On August 15 2012 00:25 [F_]aths wrote:On August 05 2012 15:30 Flexis wrote:On August 05 2012 12:03 Aetherial wrote:
After watching the OSL finals where Jangbi used carriers I'm convinced they need to keep and 'fix' the carrier in HotS... I hope they do. I say thesame. I want carriers more than the tempest. That cannot be the most important argument for a decision. If Blizzard would have asked the fans how they want SC2, we would now have Broodwar with widescreen graphics. Even though if you don't like this particular change for HotS, you should be able to see the greater good of developing a franchise forward instead of using the same old content over and over. In this case, a 'fixed' carrier would make the unit very unlikely like a carrier, so it is good that the unit gets replaced entirely instead of keeping the name for an effectively new unit. I call BS my friend. Changing stats/range of the Carrier and giving it back moving shot do not make it a 'new unit.' Scrap the carrier for all I care, but don't give me a shallow unit with no depth. The carrier has 3-4 layers of depth that make it cool. The tempest, a single layer. the carrier has no depth its the msot Amove unit in existance its exactly like a broodlords only worse since the intercepters can be shot down Perhaps the SC2 carrier, but the BW carrier, that was a wonderful unit. Required micro to use properly and was sufficiently powerful (against terran at least). I know I'm constantly asking you guys for videos but if anyone remembers great examples of goliath/carrier micro from BW I can put it in an upcoming segment on why the Carrier was so good for gameplay in BW. En Taro Carrier!
I'm sure there's tons of examples of Stork vs Flash/Fantasy on Nukethestar's Youtube channel. To busy to sift through them right now.
Edit: You're right. This is exactly what this thread needs, example videos that show Carrier can be a very interesting and useful unit in an RTS,
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9934 Posts
On August 18 2012 01:52 Tao367 wrote:
1)Watch tvp battle report
2)Replace all tempests with carriers
3) How different would that game have been?
That reason alone makes me want the carrier to be kept and buffed to be made viable, not this crappy tempest.
have to say i agree with this too. tempest looked so... gimmicky and dull in that game. micro potential also looks really low, and their contribution in actual battles appear to be terrible
|
On August 18 2012 01:32 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 19:47 revy wrote:On August 16 2012 09:02 Forikorder wrote:On August 16 2012 09:01 0neder wrote:On August 15 2012 00:25 [F_]aths wrote:On August 05 2012 15:30 Flexis wrote:On August 05 2012 12:03 Aetherial wrote:
After watching the OSL finals where Jangbi used carriers I'm convinced they need to keep and 'fix' the carrier in HotS... I hope they do. I say thesame. I want carriers more than the tempest. That cannot be the most important argument for a decision. If Blizzard would have asked the fans how they want SC2, we would now have Broodwar with widescreen graphics. Even though if you don't like this particular change for HotS, you should be able to see the greater good of developing a franchise forward instead of using the same old content over and over. In this case, a 'fixed' carrier would make the unit very unlikely like a carrier, so it is good that the unit gets replaced entirely instead of keeping the name for an effectively new unit. I call BS my friend. Changing stats/range of the Carrier and giving it back moving shot do not make it a 'new unit.' Scrap the carrier for all I care, but don't give me a shallow unit with no depth. The carrier has 3-4 layers of depth that make it cool. The tempest, a single layer. the carrier has no depth its the msot Amove unit in existance its exactly like a broodlords only worse since the intercepters can be shot down Perhaps the SC2 carrier, but the BW carrier, that was a wonderful unit. Required micro to use properly and was sufficiently powerful (against terran at least). I know I'm constantly asking you guys for videos but if anyone remembers great examples of goliath/carrier micro from BW I can put it in an upcoming segment on why the Carrier was so good for gameplay in BW. En Taro Carrier!
There were carriers in Jangbi vs Zero (PvZ) (I think, Kim Carrier cried so I assume so) and Jangbi vs Fantasy (PvT) in the last OSL.
|
On August 18 2012 04:55 TheDougler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 01:32 Archerofaiur wrote:On August 17 2012 19:47 revy wrote:On August 16 2012 09:02 Forikorder wrote:On August 16 2012 09:01 0neder wrote:On August 15 2012 00:25 [F_]aths wrote:On August 05 2012 15:30 Flexis wrote:On August 05 2012 12:03 Aetherial wrote:
After watching the OSL finals where Jangbi used carriers I'm convinced they need to keep and 'fix' the carrier in HotS... I hope they do. I say thesame. I want carriers more than the tempest. That cannot be the most important argument for a decision. If Blizzard would have asked the fans how they want SC2, we would now have Broodwar with widescreen graphics. Even though if you don't like this particular change for HotS, you should be able to see the greater good of developing a franchise forward instead of using the same old content over and over. In this case, a 'fixed' carrier would make the unit very unlikely like a carrier, so it is good that the unit gets replaced entirely instead of keeping the name for an effectively new unit. I call BS my friend. Changing stats/range of the Carrier and giving it back moving shot do not make it a 'new unit.' Scrap the carrier for all I care, but don't give me a shallow unit with no depth. The carrier has 3-4 layers of depth that make it cool. The tempest, a single layer. the carrier has no depth its the msot Amove unit in existance its exactly like a broodlords only worse since the intercepters can be shot down Perhaps the SC2 carrier, but the BW carrier, that was a wonderful unit. Required micro to use properly and was sufficiently powerful (against terran at least). I know I'm constantly asking you guys for videos but if anyone remembers great examples of goliath/carrier micro from BW I can put it in an upcoming segment on why the Carrier was so good for gameplay in BW. En Taro Carrier! There were carriers in Jangbi vs Zero (PvZ) (I think, Kim Carrier cried so I assume so) and Jangbi vs Fantasy (PvT) in the last OSL.
Awesome. Ill find those games and add them. If anyone else has any others let me know.
|
Losing the carrier sucks... Losing it to the tempest... omg...
|
why not combine the carrier and tempest?
its actaully quite simple.
Have gravatron catpult built into the unit.
have the tempest range upgrade simply make the carrier have a secondary attack(not a spell like YC)...... that has big range and does the same damage as the tempest does now.
After all don't carriers have a planet glasser on them?
|
Carriers are the answer to mech which is so powerful in TvP in HotS, why do you remove them? We need carriers or we die to terran mech.
|
On August 18 2012 04:51 intrigue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 01:52 Tao367 wrote:
1)Watch tvp battle report
2)Replace all tempests with carriers
3) How different would that game have been?
That reason alone makes me want the carrier to be kept and buffed to be made viable, not this crappy tempest. have to say i agree with this too. tempest looked so... gimmicky and dull in that game. micro potential also looks really low, and their contribution in actual battles appear to be terrible
Definitely. At least Carriers can mess with the AI of a player who is not paying attention.
|
On August 18 2012 06:21 Adonminus wrote:
Carriers are the answer to mech which is so powerful in TvP in HotS, why do you remove them? We need carriers or we die to terran mech.
True man, from the few mech games I've played I felt that even smaller numbers of thors still shredded Void Ray groups way better than I thought they would; at least carrier can stand against a mecher using thors for aa AND the new carrier micro is way better to "magic box" than trying to do it with VRs. Also, mechers who use vikings for aa would normally trash carriers but vikings used in this case are countered by about 3 high templar.
|
On August 18 2012 06:08 Zergrusher wrote:
why not combine the carrier and tempest?
its actaully quite simple.
Have gravatron catpult built into the unit.
have the tempest range upgrade simply make the carrier have a secondary attack(not a spell like YC)...... that has big range and does the same damage as the tempest does now.
After all don't carriers have a planet glasser on them?
I don't under stand why Gravatron Catapult is even an upgrade -_- Is is to slow down Carrier Timing Attacks?
|
On August 18 2012 06:28 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 06:08 Zergrusher wrote:
why not combine the carrier and tempest?
its actaully quite simple.
Have gravatron catpult built into the unit.
have the tempest range upgrade simply make the carrier have a secondary attack(not a spell like YC)...... that has big range and does the same damage as the tempest does now.
After all don't carriers have a planet glasser on them?
I don't under stand why Gravatron Catapult is even an upgrade -_- Is is to slow down Carrier Timing Attacks?
Well at least at my level minute 26 is a tight transitional period in my PvZs.
|
On August 18 2012 06:28 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 06:08 Zergrusher wrote:
why not combine the carrier and tempest?
its actaully quite simple.
Have gravatron catpult built into the unit.
have the tempest range upgrade simply make the carrier have a secondary attack(not a spell like YC)...... that has big range and does the same damage as the tempest does now.
After all don't carriers have a planet glasser on them?
I don't under stand why Gravatron Catapult is even an upgrade -_- Is is to slow down Carrier Timing Attacks?
It's to stop them rushing to them, it's the same for colossus range, battlecruiser yamoto etc
|
but graviton catapult research takes almost half of a carrier train time, and does not share production time with carrier... it does not really delays a carrier rush. Even cost wise, its research time is so low, you can get it a little before your push and have it in time.
|
On August 18 2012 07:05 Cuce wrote:
but graviton catapult research takes almost half of a carrier train time, and does not share production time with carrier... it does not really delays a carrier rush. Even cost wise, its research time is so low, you can get it a little before your push and have it in time.
This is half true. Speaking from experience with my 1 base carrier rush build against Terran, the graviton catapult upgrade finishes right before the second carrier pops and you bust the natural (the timings on the build are incredibly tight, so there simply isn't anywhere else in the build to fit it in), but when the first carrier comes out and you try to harass the main (usually to try to snipe a researching tech lab), the lack of graviton catapult actually makes a significant difference. Definitely takes a while longer to snipe a tech lab without graviton catapult than with.
That said, in almost all other situations that I can think of there is no reason to have a carrier out before graviton catapult, so it really makes no difference unless the Protoss player forgets to research it for some unknown reason.
|
+1
The Carrier is the protoss icon!
|
carrier + hts = the shit
tempest + hts? lol no thx
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
